STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NY 11433
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEAL OF DOCKET NO.: DL110068RO
DOCKET NO.: DG110716S
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
On December 26, 1989, the above-named petitioner-owner filed a
petition for administrative review (PAR) of an order issued on
November 27, 1989, by the Rent Administrator, concerning the
housing accommodation known as 138-24 68th Drive, Kew Gardens
Hills, N.Y., Apt. 75-A, wherein the Administrator determined that
a reduction in rent was warranted based upon a reduction in
The Rent Administrator also directed full restoration of services.
The Commissioner has reviewed all the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the administrative appeal.
The issue herein is whether the Rent Administrator properly reduced
the rent of the subject apartment.
On July 11, 1989, the tenant filed a complaint alleging that the
owner failed to maintain certain services in the subject apartment.
The owner filed an answer to the complaint alleging, in pertinent
part, that the tenant did not provide access to the maintenance
workers to perform the needed repairs.
A DHCR inspection conducted on November 10, 1989, revealed that
although certain service deficiencies had been corrected, the small
bedroom light fixture had been removed which exposed worn and
On appeal, the petitioner-owner asserted, in pertinent part, that
the tenant was either refusing or delaying access to the subject
apartment and that this prevented the owner from correcting all
The petition was served on the tenant on March 13, 1990.
After a careful consideration of the entire evidence of record the
Commissioner is of the opinion that the administrative appeal
should be denied.
The Commissioner has considered the owner's argument that access to
the subject apartment was delayed or denied and rejects this
argument. The file shows clearly that the owner's employees gained
access to the subject apartment on several prior occasions and
completed sundry repairs in a workmanlike manner.
Moreover, the owner had almost four (4) months from service of the
tenant's complaint until the issuance of the Administrator's order
to investigate the tenant's complaint and to make necessary
repairs, but the owner failed to do so.
Policy Statement 90-5 (Arranging Repairs; No Access Inspections)
When the owner receives the copy of the tenant's complaint
from DHCR, the owner has twenty (20) days in which to respond.
If the owner asserts that he or she is unable to gain access
during this time, this fact should be included in the
response. In order to obtain a "no-access" inspection, the
owner should then submit to the DHCR copies of two letters to
the tenant attempting to arrange access dates. Each of these
letters must be mailed at least eight days before the proposed
date for access and the second letter must be sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested. The return receipt
must also be submitted with the request for a "no access"
The Commissioner also finds that the owner failed to comply with
the requirements of Policy Statement 90-5 as set forth above.
Accordingly, the Administrator properly relied on the entire
evidence in the record, including the results of the November 10,
1989, inspection which confirmed the existence of a defective
condition warranting a rent reduction.
Accordingly, the Administrator's order based on the inspection was
The automatic stay of the retroactive rent abatement that resulted
by the filing of this petition is vacated upon issuance of this
order and opinion.
Upon a restoration of services, the owner may separately apply for
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law and Code,
ORDERED, that this petition be, and the same hereby is, denied, and
that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
LULA M. ANDERSON